Anonymous shrimp_fried_rice 4w

Now granted, neither of their economies are pure bona fide socialism, but tbh it’s far more than capitalists will suspect and again they’re doing fine

6

Anonymous shrimp_fried_rice 4w

And on that, America isn’t even the pure capitalist utopia people want you to believe it is!! If it was we wouldn’t have any programs like low income housing, SNAP benefits, disability payments, Medicaid and many other government supported programs

6

Anonymous #3 4w

I sure do love the freedom to give my surplus value to the capitalists under threat of starvation 🥰

12

Anonymous #3 4w

1) the 600,000+ thousand homeless people and the millions more who are one medical emergency away from joining them (in the wealthiest county in the history of this planet by the way) would like to disagree with you on that. 2) Unions/ worker owned businesses in no way have been allowed to exist without harm. In modern times Starbucks and Amazon practice union busting, and throughout history unions literally got into shootouts with police sent to crack down on their strikes

14

Anonymous #5 4w

Very well put

11

Anonymous #5 4w

Surplus value theory is based on the labor theory of value. It’s economic nonsense. It’s like citing flat earth theory or intelligent design. We’ve known for 150 years that value is subjective, determined by marginal utility, scarcity, and individual preferences.

-2

Anonymous #3 4w

👆Guy who has no idea what the labour theory of value actually is lmao holy shit fjdjfjfjfjf

8

Awww is Das Kapital too boring for you? Would you like some crayons and coloring book instead? 🥺

13

Anonymous #3 4w

If exchanging your labor is voluntary then stop going to work and tell us how it goes

7

Anonymous ceo_of_antifa 4w

1. Which socialist country has better outcomes than the US for the typical person? The US isn’t without problems, but most Americans live a far better life than anyone in any socialist country. 2. 9.9% of American workers are in a union, but I’m not sure I would even consider a union to be socialism. Union members don’t own the means of production. You’re free to start a worker co-op anytime you’d like.

-3

Anonymous #5 4w

In very simple terms the labor theory of value states that the value of a commodity is determined by the amount of labor required to produce it. Marx’s specific version is a little more complex, but thats the gist.

-1

Anonymous #3 4w

Another “Marx thinks labor is the source of all value” chud omg bro please I beg you to read for once 😭

8

Anonymous boariskarloff 4w

Work is required under every economic system. Someone has to work for you to survive.

-1

Marx was Russian 🥀😭💀

9

Anonymous ceo_of_antifa 4w

Карал Маркс 🫡 LMAO

5

Anonymous #3 4w

Now, wouldn’t it be fucked up if instead of eating the food they catch, someone paid those cavemen 7.25 berries an hour and they had to trade them back in for meat /j

7

Anonymous #3 4w

There isn’t a socialist county. However the United States has horrible results for its everyday people as I have illustrated. Trade unions built socialist movements, and even trying to take the idea of a worker co-op to your boss can get you fired or at least punished, given the United States horrific labor laws (fuck Ronald Reagan)

7

Anonymous shrimp_fried_rice 4w

Why are yall downvoting my first comment but agreeing with my supporting comments

1

Anonymous #5 4w

Marx contradicts himself by talking about social necessity, but I’m sure you know that Marx’s version of the LTV is not the original, right? I was explaining the LTV generally

-2

Anonymous shrimp_fried_rice 4w

I think leftist infighting will explain the downvotes, but I will not comment because I think we need antifascist solidarity more than anything rn

1

Anonymous #3 4w

Well a pre-Marxian non-materialist labour theory of value obviously isn’t what we are discussing 🤭

6

Anonymous ceo_of_antifa 4w

The United States has the highest median disposable income of any major country in the history of the planet. I’ll take that with all of its faults over any hypothetical version of socialism that has no real world data.

-2

Anonymous #3 4w

Well yeah the most imperialist and exploitative world power is the most developed and has the most wealth? Shocker lmao

8

Anonymous #5 4w

Do NOT google wealth distribution even in the United States (heart of empire)

8

Anonymous ceo_of_antifa 4w

Oh shit oh no my wealth inequality is so big it won’t fit on my chart (also this is a decade old it’s even larger now)

3

Anonymous ceo_of_antifa 4w

Psst! Don’t tell them the wealth distribution in France pre revolution wasnt as bad as modern day America

9

Anonymous #5 4w

Theres a button in front of you. If you hit the button, everyone’s wealth doubles. The poor will have twice as many resources, but the rich will also be twice as rich. Poverty will plummet, but inequality will skyrocket. Do you press the button?

-2

Anonymous #3 4w

I don’t deal in magical and metaphysical impossibility’s lol

6

Anonymous #3 4w

Ah, this must also be the button that changes the fabric of reality because that shit would never happen 😭

7

Anonymous #5 4w

Do you also avoid answering when someone asks you about trolley problem? It’s a thought experiment in moral philosophy. Which do you favor reducing poverty or reducing inequality? It’s an actual real life tradeoff that has to be made when considering economic policy.

-2

Anonymous #3 4w

Trolley problem could occur in real life. Your scenario could not

5

Anonymous #5 4w

You’re right that inequality has increased. The rich have gotten richer. What you’re neglecting is that the poor have gotten richer too.

-2

Anonymous #3 4w

Holy shit this guy hit me with this exact hypothetical lmao

7

Anonymous #3 4w

Reducing poverty IS reducing inequality. Reducing inequality would necessarily include reducing poverty.

8

Anonymous #3 4w

This guy thinks capitalism will just achieve infinite economic growth on a finite planet with finite resources until we are all rich! The height of delusion lmao

10

Anonymous #5 4w

I think its much more important to work towards reducing poverty than eliminating inequality. Liberal economies have reduced poverty more than any other economic system.

-2

Anonymous #3 4w

They have not reduced it enough. Which is why we need socialism and communism

13

Anonymous #3 4w

Bro is advocating for a nanny state run by billionaires

7

Anonymous ceo_of_antifa 4w

You actually have to prove that socialism and communism are more effective at eliminating poverty. You can’t just make a claim without any data and expect me to believe you.

-2

Anonymous boariskarloff 4w

Do you ever argue in good faith?

-1

Anonymous #3 4w

Well the end result of what you’re suggesting is a nanny state run by billionaires so I figured I’d just call it that

8

Anonymous boariskarloff 4w

And you said you would press the button, massively increasing inequality. We can make everyone equal by taking away everything they own. That will not reduce poverty. Its not a hard concept to grasp. Material poverty and inequality are different.

0

Anonymous #3 4w

You’re no Sisyphus little bro

10

Anonymous #3 4w

Doing PR for billionaires actually sickening to watch my fellow man so hollowed out

6

Anonymous #5 4w

Who said anything about infinite growth? Are you against reducing poverty?

-1

Anonymous ceo_of_antifa 4w

An inability to engage with hypotheticals could be a sign of neurodivergence of some kind. You should see a doctor.

0

Anonymous #3 4w

When the hypothetical is “would you rather have unlimited bacon and no games, or unlimited games but no games” I think it is perfectly valid to reject. Additionally even if everyone’s wealth doubled under capitalism, guess what would also double: the price of literally everything

11

Anonymous ceo_of_antifa 4w

This is a real world scenario. The US, we have high inequality but low poverty. Vietnam has high poverty but low inequality. These are in part due to past policy decisions. The economic policy is the real world version of the button.

-1

Anonymous ceo_of_antifa 4w

The price of everything would not double. You’re thinking about if we simply doubled the amount of currency they had. I’m talking about wealth, which is about the resources you have access to. If I have 10 apples, and you have 25 apples we’re both better off if our apples double.

-1

Anonymous #3 4w

Yes until the capitalists realize they can squeeze more out of us because this system is literally about maximizing profits until the machine breaks

4

Anonymous #5 4w

Either version of LTV is demonstrably false. The expert consensus is that value is subjective, and once you accept that surplus value theory falls apart.

-1

Anonymous ceo_of_antifa 4w

Individual have incentives to maximize profits, but the system as a whole absolutely is not built to maximize profits. Average corporate profits are in the ballpark of ~10%.

-1

Anonymous #3 4w

Which is like how many trillions of dollars?

2

Anonymous ceo_of_antifa 4w

The American economy is the largest economy in history, so its a lot of money.

-1

Anonymous #3 4w

Yeah so the conclusion would be that 10% isn’t actually small in an economy this big then. Especially when that 10% is only seen by the top .1% of people

3

Anonymous ceo_of_antifa 4w

62% of Americans own stock according to Gallup in 2023. It’s not just the top .1% of people. Not that it matters. None of this invalidates my original two points.

-1

Anonymous #3 4w

Jarvis show me the proportion of stock ownership by wealth amount😛

1